Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jaishree Thakur, J.
Amarjit Kaur & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jaswinder Kaur & Anr. - Respondents
CRM-M No.13517 of 2018
Decided On : 15-05-2020
Mr. Bhrigu Dutt Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1; Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab, for the Respondent
The judgment established the principle that the misuse of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than a shield, without specific allegations and prima facie evidence, constitutes an abuse of process of law.
Headnote:
498-A - Domestic Violence - IPC 498-A, IPC 506, IPC 120-B - The court discussed the allegations of harassment, dowry demands, and abuse against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 506, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The court highlighted the lack of specific allegations and the absence of prima facie evidence against the petitioners, ultimately quashing the complaint and subsequent proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a criminal complaint and summoning order under Sections 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC, and a subsequent order declaring them as proclaimed offenders. The complaint was made by the respondent, alleging harassment, dowry demands, and abuse by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint lacked specific allegations and prima facie evidence against the petitioners, ultimately leading to the quashing of the complaint and subsequent proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was whether the allegations of harassment, dowry demands, and abuse against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 506, and 120-B IPC were substantiated and warranted further proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of specific allegations and prima facie evidence against the petitioners, citing the absence of a case and the misuse of Section 498-A IPC as a weapon rather than a shield.
Final Decision: The court quashed the criminal complaint, summoning order, and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners under Sections 498-A, 506, and 120-B IPC.
JUDGMENT
Jaishree Thakur, J. - This is a petition that has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash Criminal Complaint No.31861/13 dated 06.09.2012 and the summoning order dated 06.12.2016 whereby petitioners herein have been summoned to face trial under Sections 498-A, 506, 120-B IPC and order dated 04.08.2017 declaring the petitioners as proclaimed offenders. Petitioners herein are the father-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the respondent No.1 Jaswinder Kaur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant).
2. In brief, the facts are that the abovesaid criminal complaint had been made by the complainant, who got married with Jaswant Singh on 05.08.1989. Jaswant Singh is none other than the real brother of petitioners No.1 and 2 and son of petitioner No.3. In the complaint it was averred that marriage was solemnized lavishly and a sum of Rs.4 lakhs was spent thereon, apart from giving dowry articles, gold ornaments and other luxurious items. The complaint was made against the husband Jaswant Singh, Amarjit Kaur alleged to be second wife of Jaswant Singh, father-in-law Dilbagh Singh, mother-in-law Charan Kaur, brother-in-law Ranjit Singh and the sister-in-law Amarjit Kaur.
3. It was further alleged that soon after the marriage, the accused persons named in the complaint started harassing the complainant on account of not bringing enough dowry and they raised a demand of Maruti 800 car along with an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Though the complainant persuaded the accused persons with regard to inability of her parents to fulfill their demands, in the month of March, 1990, husband of the complainant at the instance of other accused gave her beatings and stated that she would have no place in the house if the demands are not fulfilled. Accused No.4 in the complaint i.e. mother-in-law of the complainant also raised a demand of gold ornament.
4. On 24.07.1993, the complainant gave birth to a girl child namely Manjinder Kaur at Nawanshahar and entire expenses of the delivery were borne by parents of the complainant. It was alleged that after the birth of girl child, the mother-in-law raised a demand of Rs.5 lakhs. The husband and petitioners herein along with mother-in-law taunted the complainant for not giving birth to a male child. In the year 2002, the complainant was turned out of the matrimonial home and at that point of time, her mother-in-law took all gold ornaments and other articles belonged to the complainant. It was further alleged that on 24.01.2008, husband of the complainant at the instance of his family members turned her out of matrimonial home and on 23.02.2008 also left the daughter with the complainant at Jalandhar and threatened her of dire consequences if she made a complaint against him. In this regard, the complainant made a complaint to SSP, Nawanshahr on 15.04.2008 but no action had been taken. In the month of September, 2009, severe blows were given in her stomach by accused No.1 i.e. the husband. She came to know that her husband solemnized a second marriage with one Amarjit Kaur (who was made accused No.2 in the complaint) without taking any divorce from her. She filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A complaint was also made by her to the Commissioner of Police on 5.76.2012 but no action had been taken.
5. In support of her complaint, complainant stepped into witness box as CW1 and examined one Balkiat Singh as CW-2 and Piar Kaur as CW3, who reiterated the version of the complaint. She placed on record photographs of her husband with second wife as Ex.C3 to C5 and copies of petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act against her and against his second wife as Ex.C6 and C7 respectively. The Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar on appreciation of material placed before it, vide order dated 25.03.2013 summoned the husband to face trial under Sections 406, 498-A, 506 and
